greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) (03/27/85)
I was just thinking that with all of the suggestions and changes people have made to all of the different gaming systems, why couldn't 'netland' just create their own? I am proposing this: 1) Find a coordinator to handle the mailing list and count votes. (I would volunteer if no one else does) 2) We would start with some subject and people would send their ideas to the coordinator, (hopefully these ideas are terribly short, yet complet). 3) The coordinator would gather them all together in something like a digest and send it to everyone, say two weeks after first asking for the subject. 4) People would peruse the thing, and make a vote for some specific section within it. There would have to be some way to have discussions about the sections. 5) The coordinator would take the votes and we would have a new section to our gaming system. 6) Another subject would be selected for discussion and creation. I think with all of the people out there, we could get a lot of creative ideas fairly quickly. One of these days, when all is done, we'd have our own gaming system. One of the advantages we have over companies is that, for the most part, only a couple people design the system. We have an entire world full of people (sort of) who could contribute their best ideas. One of the major things to overcome is where the discussions are to be held about this thing. Should it all be over mail on over net.news.frp? Mail could get pretty cumbersome maybe, but a the newsgroup would solve that. Although, some people on the newgroup may not be interested, and mail would solve this. Personally, I don't know how hard it is to create a newsgroup, but that would be most ideal. Imagine - a worldwide effort at the ultimate in FRP. The newsgroup would still need some sort of leader, coordinator, moderator, whatever, so that the conversations stay in-line, and there is a base for archiving the current manuals and tallying votes. How about it netland? Greg Stein ..!tektronix!reed!greg
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) (03/27/85)
Sounds good to me. However, how about a lot of coordinators that each takes care of a specific part of the system. I would be willing to take a part of it. Random Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
chuck@anwar.UUCP (chuck jann) (03/29/85)
> I was just thinking that with all of the suggestions and >changes people have made to all of the different gaming systems, >why couldn't 'netland' just create their own? > Greg Stein > ..!tektronix!reed!greg Greg, I think it is highly unlikely that anything usable will ever come of it but it does sound like lots of fun. Note: This is NOT (repeat not) an offer to moderate. -- ========================================================== cj UUCP address: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!philabs!hhb!chuck
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/29/85)
< How to approach this? Dry humor? Pure sarcasm? Disbelief? I DISBELIEVE! > In article <1179@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: > > I was just thinking that with all of the suggestions and >changes people have made to all of the different gaming systems, >why couldn't 'netland' just create their own? Well. Perhaps I have been in the "real world" for too long, but it sure looks to me like Greg wants to form an ANSI committee to standardize FRP games. ::-] (smiling umber hulk) Actually, I suspect that there are too many diverse opinions on what is a good way to do something, or too much apathy on the part of those who are actually capable of designing good rules (after all, they're all off running their own games!) to get anything really worthwhile. Not to mention the religious issue. However, it WOULD be an interesting experiment to try. Hutch
mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) (03/30/85)
> > I was just thinking that with all of the suggestions and > changes people have made to all of the different gaming systems, > why couldn't 'netland' just create their own? > edit-edit-edit > > I think with all of the people out there, we could > get a lot of creative ideas fairly quickly. One of these > days, when all is done, we'd have our own gaming system. > One of the advantages we have over companies is that, for > the most part, only a couple people design the system. We > have an entire world full of people (sort of) who could > contribute their best ideas. > > Greg Stein > ..!tektronix!reed!greg That's funny. From all the crap slung at A.D.@D. recently, I had just assumed that it WAS designed by committee. [That's a joke, son.] Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) (03/30/85)
In article <1301@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes: >< How to approach this? Dry humor? Pure sarcasm? Disbelief? I DISBELIEVE! > > >In article <1179@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: >> >> I was just thinking that with all of the suggestions and >>changes people have made to all of the different gaming systems, >>why couldn't 'netland' just create their own? > >Well. Perhaps I have been in the "real world" for too long, but it sure >looks to me like Greg wants to form an ANSI committee to standardize >FRP games. ::-] (smiling umber hulk) > >Actually, I suspect that there are too many diverse opinions on what is >a good way to do something, or too much apathy on the part of those who >are actually capable of designing good rules (after all, they're all off >running their own games!) to get anything really worthwhile. > >Not to mention the religious issue. > >However, it WOULD be an interesting experiment to try. > >Hutch I hardly consider this idea an attempt to "ANSI-ize" FRP. I am being serious here, too. What the heck? Wouldn't you want a system that is created from some of your own ideas? You could donate information that you particularly want in, or feel you have a good idea about. But, say you don't want to bother with combat. Don't then. Contribute to magic, environments, monster information, anything. Personally, I feel that if this thing is moderated well, it could be a success. Sure, there will be diverse opinions, but there is a thing called 'Compromise'. As far as apathy, sure it will exist, but if someone wants to get a great gaming system, then they'll contribute. As far as religious issues, I'm not sure what you mean. This would be just as controversial as any FRP game (of the AD&D variety). To non-critics: So far, I have received several replies from people. Currently it looks like a vote for using mailing lists in keeping up information, rather than using the newsgroup. I'll wait a few more days until I get some more replies before making a complete posting to the net. Meanwhile, please keep sending me some more mail, or even posting for a complete posting. Please keep sending more mail, or posting your ideas to the net (actually, criticism is welcome, Hutch. This may not be the best idea, but then again...). Thanks again for the replies, and I'll keep you posted... Greg Stein ..!tektronix!reed!greg
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/31/85)
In article <1179@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: > >One of the advantages we have over companies is that, for >the most part, only a couple people design the system. We >have an entire world full of people (sort of) who could >contribute their best ideas. I would think this a disadvantage, as we would be very likely to produce an incoherent gaming system. Many people feel that about the only good creative work ever to come out of a committee was the King James Bible (and many people will only subscribe to that statement to the extent that this version of the Bible is literature, not theology). Personally, I think that one or two well-informed, talented designers stand a much better chance of designing a good system than do 20 or 30 well meaning, perhaps even equally well-informed and talented people. I think a format much more likely to produce good results would be to have one or two people with a large amount of time on their hands bring up topics for discussion, request people's advice about how to design that portion of the game system, and then make up their minds on their own. This method gives the benefit of the net's experience but does not risk producing an incoherent potporri. Of course, we need one or two folks with ample free time... > One of the major things to overcome is where the >discussions are to be held about this thing. Should it >all be over mail on over net.news.frp? Mail could get >pretty cumbersome maybe, but a the newsgroup would solve >that. Although, some people on the newgroup may not be >interested, and mail would solve this. Personally, I >don't know how hard it is to create a newsgroup, but that >would be most ideal. Actually, I doubt if many net.games.frp readers would object to seeing this sort of thing. Clearly, the right way to go if you're really interested in doing this is to start out in this newsgroup and see how much traffic is generated. If there's lots of traffic and people start to object to its clogging up the newsgroup, then it's time to investigate a new newsgroup. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (04/01/85)
[ quash that bug ] In article <1205@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: > As far as religious issues, I'm not sure what you mean. This >would be just as controversial as any FRP game (of the AD&D variety). Well, the major religious issue I run into is deciding how complex a model to keep. Since back in 1977, my friend Spider and I have been attempting to put together a system that we can stand to live with. By dint of much hacking and patching, and shameless borrowing, we came up with a model we can live with. Unfortunately this model is so detailed it causes strong men to blench, causes strong women to sneer in disgust, causes children to whine. On the other hand, an acquaintance here at Tek has been playing in a TFT campaign for some years, and that group has a very simple model. Our system has the advantage that we can handle subtle interactions between skills and basic abilities. The TFT setup is mostly FAST. It makes one to wince at the kludginess of that model. If it is taken the way it is written, you start out as Herve' Villachez (Tatoo) and end up Lou Ferrigno. The S2 system doesn't have that problem, but then, it takes >2hours to create a character properly. THAT's what I meant by religious issues; people will prefer a particular approach to modeling. If you can mediate this type of disagreement without losing the cooperation of one or more participants, you have what it takes to run the aforementioned ANSI committee. >To non-critics: > So far, I have received several replies from people. Currently >it looks like a vote for using mailing lists in keeping up information, >rather than using the newsgroup. I'll wait a few more days until >I get some more replies before making a complete posting to the net. >Meanwhile, please keep sending me some more mail, or even posting >for a complete posting. Please keep sending more mail, or posting >your ideas to the net (actually, criticism is welcome, Hutch. This >may not be the best idea, but then again...). I look forward to seeing you come up with something. I suggest that before you actually start soliciting for models, that you poll the contributors for their preferences, and that you have an agreement ahead of time about how you plan to resolve the inevitable disagreements. > Thanks again for the replies, and I'll keep you posted... > > Greg Stein > ..!tektronix!reed!greg Good luck, and despite my initial clouds of gloom, I still wish you great success. Hutch
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (04/01/85)
In article <4596@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes: >In article <1179@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: >> >>One of the advantages we have over companies is that, for >>the most part, only a couple people design the system. We >>have an entire world full of people (sort of) who could >>contribute their best ideas. > >I would think this a disadvantage, as we would be very likely to produce an >incoherent gaming system. Many people feel that about the only good creative >work ever to come out of a committee was the King James Bible (and many people >will only subscribe to that statement to the extent that this version of the >Bible is literature, not theology). Personally, I think that one or two >well-informed, talented designers stand a much better chance of designing a >good system than do 20 or 30 well meaning, perhaps even equally well-informed >and talented people. > >I think a format much more likely to produce good results would be to have >one or two people with a large amount of time on their hands bring up topics >for discussion, request people's advice about how to design that portion of >the game system, and then make up their minds on their own. This method gives >the benefit of the net's experience but does not risk producing an incoherent >potporri. Of course, we need one or two folks with ample free time... > >> One of the major things to overcome is where the >>discussions are to be held about this thing. Should it >>all be over mail on over net.news.frp? Mail could get >>pretty cumbersome maybe, but a the newsgroup would solve >>that. Although, some people on the newgroup may not be >>interested, and mail would solve this. Personally, I >>don't know how hard it is to create a newsgroup, but that >>would be most ideal. > >Actually, I doubt if many net.games.frp readers would object to seeing this >sort of thing. Clearly, the right way to go if you're really interested in >doing this is to start out in this newsgroup and see how much traffic is >generated. If there's lots of traffic and people start to object to its >clogging up the newsgroup, then it's time to investigate a new newsgroup. >-- > Peter Reiher designing ANYTHING by committee is fraught with peril. it takes a talented, well organized, and dedicated group of people who work well together to produce reliable and well designed work. peter's suggestions are ones that i wholeheartedly agree with. three or four people working closely and sharing similar philosophies and a large group of resource people are more likely to get things done in a reasonable length of time and produce a coherent system. large software projects are of comparable complexity and we all know how much work has to go into producing something useful. e-mail is out unless the people are one or two machine hops away, and using this newgroup is likely to result in the whole project being dropped because of lack of timely communication. my opinion, only, of course. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
dave@gitpyr.UUCP (David Corbin) (04/01/85)
> In article <1179@reed.UUCP> greg@reed.UUCP (Greg Stein) writes: > > > >One of the advantages we have over companies is that, for > >the most part, only a couple people design the system. We > >have an entire world full of people (sort of) who could > >contribute their best ideas. > > I would think this a disadvantage, as we would be very likely to produce an > incoherent gaming system. I heartly agree that this method will probably not produce a good, well-designed gaming system. I do think it will provide LOTS of good ideas that have the potential to lead to a good gaming system. I would prefer to simply see all the 'digests', and from that, make my own decisions on what to use. I consider myself to be imaginative, but I can't think of EVERYTHING. David Corbin Georgia Institute of Technology Box 34034 Atlanta GA 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dave ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!dave
steve@siemens.UUCP (04/01/85)
A system designed by netland is bound to be schizoid. I suggest
instead that interested people simply post their own systems (or
the interesting parts of their systems), and perhaps people may
wish to discuss methods of designing frp's (how to maintain
"realism" and playability, etc.). Rather than a single schizophrenic
Nets & Nymphs (TM) with lots of arguments about whose magic system
is better, we can build up a large body of frp game material that
individuals may tap.
One thing I have found in my years of designing my own systems is that
it really works a lot better if you start by explicitly writing down
how you want your system to work. For example, for my own combat system,
the first thing I realized was that I wanted an integrated combat/movement/
fatigue system, not just combat by itself. I came up with the following
approximate set of goals, more or less in order of importance, and then built
a system to satisfy them. (I never really play tested it, but I know it is
much better than previous systems I designed.)
1. Combat should (seem to) be faster to play than D&D. (D&D (or AD&D) can
be pretty fast for people who know the tables and don't use too many
weapon modifiers and critical hit tables and things, but for new people
it's usually a lot of going from table to chart to table.)
2. It should do a better job of dealing with time, encumbrance, and
movement. The turns are too coarse a time division and the segment
business is not a very good patch. It is ridiculous to have (almost)
all creatures move one of only three speeds (3", 6", or 9").
3. It should allow for some weapons being intrinsically faster than others
as well as some causing more damage than others.
4. It should allow for people to increase their proficiency in a weapon
by reasonably small increments, and to have proficiency built in from
the start.
5. I am not particularly interested in critical hits, so hit location is
not of interest.
Once I set out my goals explicitly, I was able to come up with something
fairly good. In order to obviate the need for dozens of tables, I finally
came out with a character melee sheet which is produced by computer that
contains all the rows and columns of tables a character will need, organized
for very easy and fast access. The system is designed so that the things of
a character that are likely to change over the course of the adventure are
not going to require making a new character melee sheet. The one aspect
of the system that I am happiest with is time. I divide time up into segments
that are on the order of one second long, and each thing a person wants to
do take some number of segments. If a person wants to fight for a "round",
he fights for so many segments until he gets a chance to roll to hit. If
a player wants to move from here to there, he finds the distance and his
speed and figures how many segments. Each player has a piece of graph paper
and marks off segments as time goes by. The referee always has to find
out who completes his current action next, everyone marks off time up
to that point, then that action is done.
As I mentioned above, this hasn't really been playtested, but it appears from
preliminary testing that it will be no slower than d&d but will be much more
"realistic". I hope you were able to get something out of my description;
someday I will try to post a fairly complete description of my systems, but
I have recently changed my philosophy from "nothing but papers, pencils,
and dice needed to play" to "papers, pencils, dice, and Macintosh needed
to play", which means some redesign to take the Mac into account.
By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that
the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend
some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted
swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any
suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't
restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever?
The first time a couple players tried my system out they rolled up new
characters, both became magic users, and spent a year making "runes of
illusion". (Illusion is a first level spell, and they both specialized in
rune writing, which means that was the only way they could do magic.)
They then set off with backpacks full of runes that they could use at a
moment's notice, effectively having hundreds of illusion spells available.
It was funny, but a disaster as well. They were supposed to be able to
make some small number of runes, not hundreds; but they were also not supposed
to hang around town so long before they left.
Enough rambling for now,
Steve Clark {princeton | astrovax}!siemens!stevedave@garfield.UUCP (David Janes) (04/02/85)
Actually, it doesn't matter whether the project produces a final result or not, the thrashing over of ideas will probally be good for all the people involved anyway (for their own personal frp projects.) dave
jeff@alberta.UUCP (Curt J. Sampson) (04/08/85)
In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: > > ...a magic user can go off and spend >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, that don't >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? My, my, that is a problem. However, I think that the magicians would have somewhat more of a problem on their hands when the local inhabitants found out that they were witches (warlocks?) and perhaps were up to nasty things. They would probably get enough time to create four or five small things or one large thing before they had to skip town. Of course, if they avoided populated areas, chances are that they would get attacked by monsters, if they didn't run out of some item available only in a town sooner. It's little tricks like this that keep a gamemaster a step or two ahead of his players. Even if the players know about this kind of thing, there isn't much they can do about it. Does anybody else have any hints like this? -- Curt Sampson ihnp4!alberta!jeff "There is a theory which states that if every anyone discovers exactly what the Usenet is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by somehing even more bizarre and inexplicable. "There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
west@cs.reading.UUCP (Jeremy West @ Reading Unversity) (04/09/85)
In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: >1. Combat should (seem to) be faster to play than D&D. (D&D (or AD&D) can > be pretty fast for people who know the tables and don't use too many > weapon modifiers and critical hit tables and things, but for new people > it's usually a lot of going from table to chart to table.) Why not adopt the RQ! combat style. This gives a %age chance to hit an active opponent with a particular weapon. Do NOT be fooled by D&D calling it's roll a 'to hit' roll. It is NOT, it is a 'penetration' roll! You are assumed to hit (land a blow) automatically in the one minute melee round, and the roll is to see if you penetrated armour or caused fatigue or whatever loss of HTK represents. To see that this is so, consider a greeblie trying to throw his hammer at the alarm button on the wall. What IS the AC of a button on the wall? At least with a "%age chance to hit" system you have something to work on. Combat is always faster under this sytem since there are NO tables to consult. Each player knows how good he/she is with a particular weapon. If you ignore critical hits and fumbles combat reduces to one roll 'to hit' and another for damage. Armour reduces damage, of course, but only the DM need worry about this to start with and can make all necessary adjustments to the players 'raw' rolls. >3. It should allow for some weapons being intrinsically faster than others > as well as some causing more damage than others. A simple (?) rule I adopted for AD&D was :- Each character calculates a combat speed factor for each weapon used (this is not difficult and will not hinder play if a weapon is picked up & used). csf = (wpn speed (less 1 per pt of dx over 15))/3 (round down) giving a number from 0 to 5 initiative = d6 = reaction speed (ie lowest value goes first) segment blow lands (ie roll to penetrate) = csf + initiative. for spell casters, casting starts on initiative segment and ends at end of casting time (so a blow may disrupt casting). I use 1 segment = 1 second. Note: initiative is modified downwards by 1 for every 2" move a character has over 24". AD&D monks automatically win initiative vs non-hasted opponents by about 12th level under this rule. This beefs the poor buggers up a bit, Ghod knows they need all the help they can get. >4. It should allow for people to increase their proficiency in a weapon > by reasonably small increments, and to have proficiency built in from > the start. Use a %age to hit system, where armour absorbs damage. It really can fit into anotherwise bog-standard AD&D system. Use the RQ! system of increasing proficiency (roll > current %age to increase by 5% (or d10% or whatever)). >5. I am not particularly interested in critical hits, so hit location is > not of interest. I too think crits & location is waste of time; if a character looses a leg he's effectively useless. Forever in a low magic world. Why not kill them its the same thing! If you want critical hits, just have them do max damage + another damage roll or something. >By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, >that don't >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? Huge = very very very very very very very large (for me anyway!) TIME is the critical factor here, all potions, runes, swords etc which you don't want running wild take at least YEARS of campaign time to make. If you run a closed world this is the end of the problem, characters won't stop adventuring just to make a +3 sword when they can pick them up on adventures. Potions of <something harmless> take months not years, so they can make one or two between adventures. If you are going to have a system where mu's can make anything they want, you need to limit 1. the ingredients - their availability (after all, if you have the ingredients for a potion of healing, why sell it to someone else) and their source (vampire dust is a goody!). Basically characters have to get the ingredients themselves. 2. the method of manufacture - potions of undead control require a virgin to stir the brew (and later to be sacrificed if you want vampire control...) 3. TIME 4. COST Any combination of the above four should limit mu's nicely. Since you control EVERYTHING within your world, the characters can ONLY do what you want them to do. Normally, you don't care what they do, but in circumstances like this it is necessary to say NO! >...both became magic users, and spent a year making "runes of >illusion".... >They then set off with backpacks full of runes that they could use at a >moment's notice, effectively having hundreds of illusion spells available. >They were supposed to be able to >make some small number of runes, not hundreds; >but they were also not supposed >to hang around town so long before they left. Why not? If it pays to hang around, characters will do it. If your rules allow them to get away with it.... Limit the availability of rune quills and the special parchments; have them arrested on charges of vagrancy; ensure no hotel will accept long term bookings; have the runes nullify each other if placed within 6 inches of each other; place a time limit on how long first level runes are effective.... for every nasty devious trick they pull, be prepared with a nastier, more devious excuse as to why they can't win! --------- Have fun! Jerry {mcvax|edcaad}!ukc!ru-cs44!west ..............!ukc!reading!cs!west west@reading.cs.uucp
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/13/85)
> > In article <26000002@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes: > > >1. Combat should (seem to) be faster to play than D&D. (D&D (or AD&D) can > > be pretty fast for people who know the tables and don't use too many > > weapon modifiers and critical hit tables and things, but for new people > > it's usually a lot of going from table to chart to table.) > > Why not adopt the RQ! combat style. This gives a %age > chance to hit an active opponent with a particular weapon. > Do NOT be fooled by D&D calling it's roll a 'to hit' roll. > It is NOT, it is a 'penetration' roll! You are assumed to > hit (land a blow) automatically in the one minute melee > round, and the roll is to see if you penetrated armour or > caused fatigue or whatever loss of HTK represents. To see > that this is so, consider a greeblie trying to throw his > hammer at the alarm button on the wall. What IS the AC of a > button on the wall? At least with a "%age chance to hit" > system you have something to work on. > Combat is always faster under this sytem since there are NO > tables to consult. Each player knows how good he/she is > with a particular weapon. If you ignore critical hits and > fumbles combat reduces to one roll 'to hit' and another for > damage. Armour reduces damage, of course, but only the DM > need worry about this to start with and can make all > necessary adjustments to the players 'raw' rolls. > > >3. It should allow for some weapons being intrinsically faster than others > > as well as some causing more damage than others. > > A simple (?) rule I adopted for AD&D was :- > > Each character calculates a combat speed factor > for each weapon used (this is not difficult and will not > hinder play if a weapon is picked up & used). > > csf = (wpn speed (less 1 per pt of dx over 15))/3 > > (round down) giving a number from 0 to 5 > > initiative = d6 = reaction speed (ie lowest value goes first) > > segment blow lands (ie roll to penetrate) = csf + initiative. > > for spell casters, casting starts on initiative segment and ends at > end of casting time (so a blow may disrupt casting). > > I use 1 segment = 1 second. > > Note: initiative is modified downwards by 1 for every 2" move > a character has over 24". AD&D monks automatically win initiative > vs non-hasted opponents by about 12th level under this rule. > This beefs the poor buggers up a bit, Ghod knows they need all the > help they can get. > > >4. It should allow for people to increase their proficiency in a weapon > > by reasonably small increments, and to have proficiency built in from > > the start. > > Use a %age to hit system, where armour absorbs damage. It really can fit > into anotherwise bog-standard AD&D system. Use the RQ! system of increasing > proficiency (roll > current %age to increase by 5% (or d10% or whatever)). > > >5. I am not particularly interested in critical hits, so hit location is > > not of interest. > > I too think crits & location is waste of time; if a character looses a leg > he's effectively useless. Forever in a low magic world. Why not kill them > its the same thing! > If you want critical hits, just have them do max damage + another damage > roll or something. > > >By the way, I have a really neat magic system, but it has one flaw that > >the obvious solutions won't really fix: a magic user can go off and spend > >some huge amount of time making an arbitrary number of potions or enchanted > >swords or whatever and then carry huge amounts of magic with him. Any > >suggestions on "realistic" reasons why magic users cannot do this, > >that don't > >restrict the ability to make a few potions or swords or whatever? > > > Huge = very very very very very very very large (for me anyway!) > > TIME is the critical factor here, all potions, runes, swords etc which > you don't want running wild take at least YEARS of campaign time to make. > If you run a closed world this is the end of the problem, characters won't > stop adventuring just to make a +3 sword when they can pick > them up on adventures. > Potions of <something harmless> take months not years, > so they can make one or two between adventures. > > If you are going to have a system where mu's can make anything > they want, you need to limit > 1. the ingredients - their availability (after all, > if you have the ingredients for a potion of healing, why > sell it to someone else) and their source (vampire dust is a > goody!). Basically characters have to get the ingredients > themselves. > 2. the method of manufacture - potions of undead control > require a virgin to stir the brew (and later to be sacrificed if you want > vampire control...) > 3. TIME > 4. COST > > Any combination of the above four should limit mu's nicely. > Since you control EVERYTHING within your world, the > characters can ONLY do what you want them to do. Normally, > you don't care what they do, but in circumstances like this > it is necessary to say NO! > > >...both became magic users, and spent a year making "runes of > >illusion".... > >They then set off with backpacks full of runes that they could use at a > >moment's notice, effectively having hundreds of illusion spells available. > >They were supposed to be able to > >make some small number of runes, not hundreds; > >but they were also not supposed > >to hang around town so long before they left. > > Why not? If it pays to hang around, characters will do it. > If your rules allow them to get away with it.... > > Limit the availability of rune quills and the special > parchments; have them arrested on charges of vagrancy; > ensure no hotel will accept long term bookings; have > the runes nullify each other if placed within 6 inches of > each other; place a time limit on how long first level > runes are effective.... for every nasty devious trick they > pull, be prepared with a nastier, more devious excuse as to > why they can't win! > > --------- > > Have fun! > > Jerry {mcvax|edcaad}!ukc!ru-cs44!west > ..............!ukc!reading!cs!west > west@reading.cs.uucp *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***